UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE … - 850 - Amended motion-9.pdf · AMENDED PETITION FOR...
Transcript of UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE … - 850 - Amended motion-9.pdf · AMENDED PETITION FOR...
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
EXPEDIA, INC., FANDANGO, LLC, HOTEL TONIGHT INC., HOTWIRE, INC., HOTELS.COM, L.P., KAYAK SOFTWARE CORP., LIVE NATION
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MICROS SYSTEMS, INC., ORBITZ, LLC, OPENTABLE, INC., PAPA JOHN’S USA, INC., STUBHUB, INC.,
TICKETMASTER, LLC, TRAVELOCITY.COM LP, WANDERSPOT LLC, PIZZA HUT, INC., PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA,
INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC, GRUBHUB, INC., SEAMLESS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ORDR.IN, INC., MOBO SYSTEMS, INC., STARBUCKS
CORPORATION, EVENTBRITE, INC., BEST WESTERN INTERNATIONAL, INC., HILTON RESORTS CORP., HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., HILTON INTERNATIONAL CO., HYATT
CORPORATION, MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC., AGILYSYS, INC.,
USABLENET, INC., AND APPLE INC.
Petitioners
v.
AMERANTH, INC.
Patent Owner
U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 Issue date: May 7, 2002
Title: Information Management and Synchronous Communications System
with Menu Generation
CBM2014-00015
AMENDED PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321
AND § 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
This Amended Petition addresses the defect found in the Notice dated October 23, 2013. In accordance with the Notice, the Claim Construction section has been updated to further identify how the challenged claims are to be construed. No substantive changes have been made to the contents of the petition.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
A. The Challenged Claims Fail to Satisfy the Written Description and Definiteness Requirements of § 112 ............................................. 5
B. The Challenged Claims Fail to Claim Patentable Subject Matter under § 101 ........................................................................................... 7
II. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES ...................................................................... 10
A. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................. 10
1. Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ..................... 10
2. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................ 12
3. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ............. 16
4. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .......................... 18
B. Filing Date Requirements ................................................................... 20
1. Compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ...................................... 20
2. Proof of Service on Patent Owner (37 C.F.R. § 42.205(a)) ................................................................................. 20
3. The Filing Fee (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b) and 42.203(a)) ............ 21
C. Additional Disclosures ....................................................................... 21
1. At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.208(c)) .................................................................. 21
2. Eligibility Based on Time of Filing (37 C.F.R. § 42.303) ....... 22
3. Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)) ............................... 22
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-ii-
4. A Legible Copy of Every Exhibit in the Exhibit List (37 C.F.R. § 42.63) ......................................................................... 22
III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ..................................................................... 22
A. Eligibility Based on Infringement Suit (37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a)) ........ 22
B. Eligibility Based on Lack of Estoppel (37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b)) ........ 24
C. The ‘850 Patent Is a CBM Patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)) ................ 24
1. Claims 1-16 Meet the Definition of a CBM ............................ 25
2. Claims 1-16 Are Not Directed to a “Technological Invention” ................................................................................. 30
IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED ............................................................................. 37
A. Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(1)) ................................................................................... 37
B. Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(2)) ............. 37
C. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)) ................................. 38
1. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ......................................... 38
V. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER § 112 ............... 41
A. Claims 1-16 Are Indefinite for Mixing Apparatus and Method Elements ............................................................................................. 41
B. The Challenged Claims Do Not Satisfy the Written Description Requirement. ...................................................................................... 45
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-iii-
1. The ‘850 Patent Does Not Provide a Written Description Sufficient to Describe the “Synchronous Communications System” Claimed in Claims 12-16 When Only Use of a Local Database is Described in the Original Specification .............................................................. 47
2. Claims 1-11 Fail to Satisfy the Written Description and Definiteness Requirements ...................................................... 53
VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER § 101 ............... 56
A. Section 101 Analysis .......................................................................... 56
B. The Challenged Claims Impermissibly Claim an Abstract Idea ........ 59
C. The Challenged Claims Fail the “Machine or Transformation Test” ................................................................................................... 69
D. The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under Mayo ............................. 73
E. The Challenged Claims Are Distinguishable From Ultramercial ..... 75
VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 77
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-iv-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Accenture Global Services, GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., No. 2011-1486, 2013 WL 4749919 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 5, 2013) ........................ 8, 76
Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Systems Corp., No. 2:07-CV-271, 2010 WL 4952758 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2010) ........................ 3
Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 52
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ............................................................ 45
Bancorp Services, LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................... 61, 63, 65, 69
Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) ................................................................................. passim
CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 55
CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269 (en banc) (Fed. Cir. 2013) ......................................... 57, 59, 65, 69
Compression Tech. Solutions LLC v. EMC Corp., 2013 WL 2368039 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2013) .............................................. 57, 72
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... passim
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................... 58, 64, 70, 71
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-v-
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) ........................................................................................ 8, 58
Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 59, 64
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) .......................................................................................... 7, 72
Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 46
ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc., 558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 47
In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 38
In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) ....................................................... 70, 73
In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 43, 44
In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 39
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .............................................................................. 38
Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, No. CBM2012-00007 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013) ................................................... 33
IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................... 5, 41, 42, 43
LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 51
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-vi-
Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 46
Mayo Collaboration Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ................................................................................. passim
PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 52
Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 41
Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 58
SAP America, Inc. v Versata Development Group, No. CBM2012-0001 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013) .................................................... 59
SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, No. CBM2012-0001 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013) ....................................................... 26
SiRF Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 59, 63
Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................... 46, 52
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 75, 76
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., 6:12-cv-00375, Dkt. No. 38, slip op. (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2012) ......................... 65
Vacation Exchange LLC v. Wyndham Exchange & Rentals, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-04229, Dkt. No. 27, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) ................. 65
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ..................................................................... 47, 52
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-vii-
STATUTES
35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................ passim
35 U.S.C. § 119 ........................................................................................................ 46
35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................ 46
35 U.S.C. § 321 ............................................................................................. 1, 22, 37
35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................................ 21
35 U.S.C. § 365 ........................................................................................................ 46
AIA § 18 ........................................................................................................... passim
OTHER AUTHORITIES
157 Cong. Rec. S1360 (March 8, 2011) ............................................... 26, 28, 29, 32
77 Fed. Reg. 157 .............................................................................................. passim
M.P.E.P. § 2163 ................................................................................................ 46, 52
M.P.E.P. § 2163.02 .................................................................................................. 45
M.P.E.P. § 2173.05 ............................................................................................. 5, 41
Matal, J., A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. Bar. J. No. 4 ................................................................................. 26
MICROSOFT® PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY (4th ed. 1999) ..... 40, 41, 55
RULES
37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ..................................................................................................... 22
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-viii-
37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ..................................................................................................... 21
37 C.F.R. § 42.203 ................................................................................................... 21
37 C.F.R. § 42.205 ................................................................................................... 20
37 C.F.R. § 42.206 ................................................................................................... 20
37 C.F.R. § 42.208 ................................................................................................... 21
37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ................................................................................................... 38
37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ...................................................................................... 24, 30, 31
37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ............................................................................................ 22, 24
37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ................................................................................................... 22
37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ........................................................................................... passim
37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ....................................................................................................... 20
37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ..................................................................................................... 22
37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................................................... 10, 12, 16, 18
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-ix-
PETITIONERS’ MASTER LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
FANDANGO1001* U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
FANDANGO1002* Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
FANDANGO1003* Ameranth August 15, 2011 Press Release
FANDANGO1004 Ameranth July 2, 2012 Press Release
FANDANGO1005 Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
FANDANGO1006 Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Sys. Corp., et al., No. 2:07-CV-271, 2010 WL 4952758, at 1-2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2010)
FANDANGO1007 Menusoft, ECF No. 331
FANDANGO1008 Eventbrite Complaint
FANDANGO1009* ‘077 Notice of Allowability Examiner’s Amendment
FANDANGO1010* ‘077 Aug. 21, 2009 Reply & Amendment
FANDANGO1011 Certificate of Service
FANDANGO1012 Powers of Attorney
FANDANGO1013 Kayak Complaint
FANDANGO1014 Hotels.com Complaint
FANDANGO1015 Orbitz Complaint
FANDANGO1016 Hotel Tonight Complaint
FANDANGO1017 Travelocity Complaint
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-x-
EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
FANDANGO1018 Expedia Complaint
FANDANGO1019 Hotwire Complaint
FANDANGO1020 Wanderspot First Amended Complaint
FANDANGO1021 Micros First Amended Complaint
FANDANGO1022 Fandango Complaint
FANDANGO1023 StubHub Complaint
FANDANGO1024 Ticketmaster and Live Nation Complaint
FANDANGO1025 OpenTable’s Second Amended Complaint
FANDANGO1026 77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48734 - 48753
FANDANGO1027 77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48680 - 48732
FANDANGO1028 SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Grp., Inc.,CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 (P.T.A.B. January 9, 2013)
FANDANGO1029 Matal, J., A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act: Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. Bar. J. No. 4
FANDANGO1030 77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48756 - 48773
FANDANGO1031 U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
FANDANGO1032* U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325
FANDANGO1033* U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733
FANDANGO1034 Petitioners’ Address List
FANDANGO1035 ‘850 Office Action of May 22, 2001 at 2-3
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-xi-
EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
FANDANGO1036 Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, No. CBM2012-00007 (BJM), Paper 16 at 18 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013)
FANDANGO1037 Menusoft ECF No. 235
FANDANGO1038 Opentable First Amended Complaint
FANDANGO1039* Papa John’s II Complaint
FANDANGO1040* Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733
FANDANGO1041* Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325
FANDANGO1042 Larson Declaration (including Exhibits A-B)
FANDANGO1043 157 Cong. Rec. S1360-1394
FANDANGO1044 Apple Complaint
FANDANGO1045 Domino’s Third Amended Complaint
FANDANGO1046* Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to Fandango
FANDANGO1047* Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to StubHub
FANDANGO1048 Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to Micros Systems
FANDANGO1049 Agilysys Complaint
FANDANGO1050 Best Western Complaint
FANDANGO1051* Grubhub First Amended Complaint
FANDANGO1052 Hilton First Amended Complaint
FANDANGO1053 Hyatt First Amended Complaint
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-xii-
EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
FANDANGO1054 Marriott Complaint
FANDANGO1055 Mobo Systems Complaint
FANDANGO1056 Ordr.in Complaint
FANDANGO1057* Pizza Hut Complaint
FANDANGO1058* Seamless First Amended Complaint
FANDANGO1059 Starbucks Complaint
FANDANGO1060 Starwood First Amended Complaint
FANDANGO1061 Usablenet First Amended Complaint
FANDANGO1062 NOT USED
FANDANGO1063 SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Grp., Inc.,CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 70 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013)
FANDANGO1064 Vacation Exch. LLC v. Wyndham Exch. & Rentals, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-04229, Dkt. No. 27 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012)
FANDANGO1065 Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., 6:12-cv-00375, Dkt. No. 38 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2012)
* Denotes exhibits not cited in and not filed with this petition.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-1-
I. INTRODUCTION
Ameranth, Inc. (“Ameranth”) has instituted patent infringement cases
against Petitioners. Under 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act, Petitioners request a Covered Business Method (CBM) post-grant
review of U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 (the “ ‘850 Patent”). In particular, Petitioners
request a cancellation of Claims 1-16 of the ‘850 Patent (“Challenged Claims”) as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.
On September 21, 1999, Ameranth filed U.S. Patent Application No.
09/400,413, which eventually issued as the ‘850 Patent.
The ‘850 Patent is directed to an information management and synchronous
communications system for generating and transmitting menus in the hospitality
industry, e.g., for restaurant ordering, reservations and wait-list management
(Claims 1-11) and an information management and synchronous communications
system for use with wireless handheld computing devices and the internet in
processing hospitality applications and data in the hospitality industry, e.g., for
restaurant ordering, reservations and wait-list management (Claims 12-16). The
operations, functions and results of the claimed systems in Claims 1-16 are
managing information and communication for activities that are financial in nature.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-2-
See, e.g., Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent, Claim 2, 15:12-14 (“[a]n information
management synchronous communications systems . . . wherein the second menu
is a restaurant menu”); 1:6-8 (“[t]his invention relates to an information
management and synchronous communications system and method for generation
of computerized menus for restaurants . . . .”). For example, Ameranth states that
hospitality information technology systems performing functions such as
“online/mobile ordering, hotel/restaurant reservations, event ticketing, payment
processing/mobile wallets on smart phones, frequency, voice integration and
related functionality” require the use of Ameranth’s “patented inventions for
synchronized operations.” Exhibit 1004 at 2.
Ameranth has filed 40 different patent infringement actions alleging
infringement of the ‘850 Patent by no less than four different and distinct
industries.1 While Ameranth currently asserts the ‘850 Patent against Petitioners,
1 See Exhibit 1005, Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 Exhibit
1004, Ameranth July 2, 2012 Press Release (announcing actions against (1) “hotel
chains;” (2) on-line “travel aggregators;” (3) on-line “ticketing companies;” and
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-3-
this is not the first time Ameranth has litigated the ‘850 Patent. On June 28, 2007,
Ameranth sued Menusoft Systems Corporation and Cash Register Sales & Service
of Houston, Inc. (collectively, “Menusoft”) in the Eastern District of Texas for
alleged infringement of the ‘850, ‘325,2 and ‘7333 Patents (“Menusoft Action”).
The Menusoft Action proceeded to a trial in which the jury found that all asserted
claims were invalid for anticipation and obviousness. See Exhibit 1006, Ameranth,
Inc. v. Menusoft Sys. Corp., No. 2:07-CV-271, 2010 WL 4952758, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
Sept. 20, 2010) (finding invalidity of claims 1 and 4 of the ‘850 Patent, claims 6, 9,
and 10 of the ‘325 Patent, and claims 1 and 3 of the ‘733 Patent). While only
(4) “restaurant point of sale, and/or reservations, and/or online/mobile ordering
companies.”).
2 U.S. Patent. No. 6,871,325 (“’325 Patent”) is a continuation of the ‘850
Patent. Petitioners are contemporaneously filing a covered business method
review petition on the ‘325 Patent.
3 U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733 (“’733 Patent”) is a continuation-in-part of the
‘850 Patent. Petitioners are contemporaneously filing a covered business method
review petition on the ‘733 Patent.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-4-
certain of the Challenged Claims were at issue in the Menusoft Action, and the
invalidity verdict was ultimately vacated as a result of settlement,4 the jury
correctly determined that the asserted claims were invalid.
In addition, the claimed subject matter of Claims 1-16 of the ‘850 Patent as a
whole fails to recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the
prior art and fails to solve a technical problem using a technical solution. As such,
the ‘850 Patent is not a patent for technological inventions. Therefore, the ‘850
Patent is a covered business method patent under AIA Section 18 and is eligible
for the CBM review.
As shown by the facts and analysis in this Petition, Claims 1-16 of the ‘850
Patent as a covered business method patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 101 and 112 and must be canceled.
4 The parties in the Menusoft Action reached a settlement wherein Menusoft
agreed not to oppose vacatur of the invalidity determinations in the final judgment.
Exhibit 1007, Menusoft Motion for Indicative Ruling, ECF No. 331.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-5-
A. The Challenged Claims Fail to Satisfy the Written Description and Definiteness Requirements of § 112
Claims 1-16 of the ‘850 Patent fail to satisfy the written description and
definiteness requirements of § 112 and are therefore invalid.
First, Claims 1-16 are indefinite because they recite systems including a
method step. For example, independent Claim 1 in the ‘850 Patent is directed to an
“information management and synchronous communications system,” but also
recites a method step: “said parameters being selected from the modifier and
submodifier menus.” Independent Claim 12 is also directed to an “information
management and synchronous communications system” but recites a different
method step: “applications and data are synchronized between the central
database, at least one wireless handheld computing device, at least one Web server,
and at least one Web page.”
When, as here, “[a] single claim [] claims both an apparatus and the method
steps of using the apparatus, [the claim] is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph.” See IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(p)(II)). Because they claim a system
that includes a method step, independent Claims 1 and 12 are indefinite, as are
their dependent claims, which comprise all of the Challenged Claims.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-6-
As a second independent ground, all of the Challenged Claims are invalid
based on the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, because
Ameranth claimed technology that Applicants did not invent and that is not
disclosed in the specification. Ameranth asserts in concurrent litigation that the
claimed synchronous communication system encompasses both (1) the
synchronization of information stored in a central database with information stored
in a database on a connected handheld device and (2) sending information stored in
a central database through Internet communications without a local copy of “to-be-
synchronized” data resident in a database or otherwise on the connected handheld
device. The specification only arguably supports the former and, therefore, fails to
provide the required written description for the latter type of communication in
which there is no copy of the information in a database of or resident on a
connected handheld device. See Exhibit 1031 ‘850 Patent at 7:4-12 (stating that
the steps taken in building a menu include “Download the menu database to the
handheld device.”); Exhibit 1031 ‘850 Patent at 10:63-11:3 (“In the preferred
embodiment, the menu generation approach of the present invention uses Windows
CE®,” which “provides the benefits of a familiar Windows 95/98/NT® look and
feel [and] built-in synchronization between handheld devices, internet and desktop
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-7-
infrastructure . . . .”). Because there is no support to establish that the Applicants
were in possession of the full scope of the claimed subject matter as interpreted by
Ameranth, the Challenged Claims fail to meet the written description requirement
of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
As third and fourth grounds for unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
Claims 1-11 are also invalid based on the written description requirement and
definiteness requirements. The claimed subject matter requiring transmission of a
second menu to a web page is not adequately described in the specification. As
such, the specification fails to convey with reasonable particularity that the
patentee was in possession of the claimed subject matter. The claim language fails
the definiteness requirement as well because the language is non-sensical: A “web
page” is a document, not a device.
B. The Challenged Claims Fail to Claim Patentable Subject Matter under § 101
The Challenged Claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are
therefore invalid under § 101. Abstract ideas are not patentable. Gottschalk v.
Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). To be patentable, a claim must do more than
simply state the law of nature or abstract idea and add the words “apply it.” Mayo
Collaboration Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012).
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-8-
When evaluating a claim under § 101, the key question is whether the claims do
significantly more than simply describe the law of nature or abstract idea. Adding
steps that merely reflect routine, conventional activity do not make ineligible
subject matter eligible for a patent. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298. Furthermore, the
“prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment’ or adding ‘insignificant post-solution activity.’” Bilski v. Kappos,
130 S. Ct. 3218, 3230 (2010) (“Bilski II”) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175, 191-92 (1981)); see also Accenture Global Servs., GMBH v. Guidewire
Software, Inc., No. 2011-1486, 2013 WL 4749919, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 5, 2013)
(finding patent ineligible system claims that merely recited a corresponding
method without other “meaningful limitations”).
Indeed, Ameranth openly admits that the invention is merely directed to a
computerized system for facilitating “efficient generation of computerized menus”
using a general purpose computer. Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at Abstract. In
reciting “an information management and synchronous communications system for
generating and transmitting menus,” Claims 1-11 of the ‘850 Patent (albeit
concerning use for a financial product or service) are directed to nothing more than
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-9-
a general purpose computer using general purpose programming, and the
specification states that the system employs “typical” computer elements. Exhibit
1031, ‘850 Patent at 5:33-54. Furthermore, the specification fails to disclose any
algorithms for the synchronous communications of menus. In essence, the ‘850
Patent simply computerizes the well-known concept of generating menus and
facilitating orders from the menus, a concept that has been performed by humans
“verbally” or by “pen and paper” for years before the patent application was filed.
Although Claim 1 recites a computer “operating system,” “central processing
unit,” “data storage device,” and “wireless handheld computing device,” these
computer-aided limitations are insufficient to impart patent eligibility to the
otherwise abstract idea. The use of a computer adds no more than its basic
function – improving the “efficient generation of computerized menus” – so that
menus are generated faster than with the non-computerized process. Because
Claims 1-11 cover nothing more than an abstract idea of generating menus, and
Claims 12-16 cover nothing more than an abstract idea of placing an order or
reservation using a general purpose computer and wireless handheld device, the
Challenged Claims fail to satisfy the patent eligibility requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-10-
II. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES
A. Mandatory Notices
1. Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
The real parties-in-interest for this Petition are:
a) Agilysys, Inc.;
b) Apple Inc.;
c) Best Western International, Inc.;
d) Domino's Pizza, Inc.;
e) Domino’s Pizza, LLC;
f) Eventbrite, Inc.;
g) Expedia, Inc.;
h) Fandango, LLC (formerly known as Fandango, Inc.);
i) Grubhub, Inc.;
j) Hilton Resorts Corp.;
k) Hilton Worldwide, Inc.;
l) Hilton International Co.;
m) Hotel Tonight Inc.;
n) Hotels.com, L.P.;
o) Hotwire, Inc.;
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-11-
p) Hyatt Corporation;
q) Kayak Software Corp.;
r) Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.;
s) Marriott International, Inc.;
t) Micros Systems, Inc.;
u) Mobo Systems, Inc.
v) OpenTable, Inc.;
w) Orbitz, LLC;
x) Ordr.in, Inc.;
y) Papa John’s USA, Inc.;
z) Pizza Hut, Inc.;
aa) Pizza Hut of America, Inc.;
bb) Seamless North America, LLC;
cc) Starbucks Corporation;
dd) Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.;
ee) StubHub, Inc.;
ff) Ticketmaster, LLC;
gg) Travelocity.com LP;
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-12-
hh) Usablenet, Inc.; and
ii) Wanderspot LLC (collectively “Petitioners”).5
2. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
Petitioners have not been a party to any other post-grant review of the
Challenged Claims. Petitioner notes that the following current proceedings may
affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding:
a) Ameranth, Inc. v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 3-13-cv-01072
(S.D. Cal., filed May 6, 2013);
b) Ameranth, Inc. v. MonkeyMedia Software Inc. Case No. 3-13-
cv-00836 (S.D. Cal., filed April 5, 2013);
c) Ameranth, Inc. v. TicketBiscuit, LLC, Case No. 3-13-cv-00352
(S.D. Cal., filed Feb. 13, 2013);
d) Ameranth, Inc. v. Ticketfly, Inc., Case No. 3-13-cv-00353 (S.D.
Cal., filed Feb. 13, 2013);
5 A complete list of Petitioners and their corporate addresses are attached as
Exhibit 1034.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-13-
e) Ameranth, Inc. v. Eventbrite, Inc., Case No. 3-13-cv-00350
(S.D. Cal., filed Feb. 13, 2013);
f) Ameranth, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-02350 (S.D.
Cal., filed Sept. 26, 2012);
g) Ameranth, Inc. v. Hilton Resorts Corp. et al, Case No. 3-12-cv-
01636 (S.D. Cal., filed July 2, 2012);
h) Ameranth, Inc. v. Kayak Software Corp., Case No. 3-12-cv-
01640 (S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
i) Ameranth, Inc. v. Usablenet, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-01650
(S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
j) Ameranth, Inc v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.,
Case No. 3-12-cv-01629 (S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
k) Ameranth, Inc. v. Hotels.com, LP, Case No. 3-12-cv-01634
(S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
l) Ameranth, Inc. v. Orbitz, LLC, Case No. 3-12-cv-01644 (S.D.
Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
m) Ameranth, Inc. v. ATX Innovation, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-
01656 (S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-14-
n) Ameranth, Inc. v. EMN8, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-01659 (S.D.
Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
o) Ameranth, Inc. v. Best Western International, Inc., Case No. 3-
12-cv-01630 (S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
p) Ameranth, Inc. v. NAAMA Networks, Inc. et al, Case No. 3-12-
cv-01643 (S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
q) Ameranth, Inc. v. Subtledata, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-01647
(S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
r) Ameranth, Inc. v. Hotel Tonight, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-01633
(S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
s) Ameranth, Inc. v. Travelocity.com, LP, Case No. 3-12-cv-01649
(S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
t) Ameranth, Inc. v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-01654 (S.D.
Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
u) Ameranth, Inc. v. Hyatt Corporation, Case No. 3-12-cv-01627
(S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
v) Ameranth, Inc. v. Hotwire, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-01653 (S.D.
Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-15-
w) Ameranth, Inc. v. Wanderspot LLC, Case No. 3-12-cv-01652
(S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
x) Ameranth, Inc. v. Micros Systems, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-
01655 (S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
y) Ameranth, Inc. v. Marriott International, Inc. et al, Case No. 3-
12-cv-01631 (S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
z) Ameranth, Inc. v. Mobo Systems, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-01642
(S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
aa) Ameranth, Inc. v. Fandango, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-01651
(S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
bb) Ameranth, Inc. v. StubHub, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-01646 (S.D.
Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
cc) Ameranth, Inc. v. TicketMaster, LLC et al, Case No. 3-12-cv-
01648 (S.D. Cal., filed June 29, 2012);
dd) Ameranth, Inc. v. ChowNow, LLC, Case No. 3-12-cv-01201
(S.D. Cal., filed May 18, 2012);
ee) Ameranth, Inc. v. Agilysys, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-00858 (S.D.
Cal., filed April 6, 2012);
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-16-
ff) Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC et al, Case No. 3-12-cv-
00733 (S.D. Cal., filed March 27, 2012);
gg) Ameranth, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc. et al, Case No. 3-11-cv-01810
(S.D. Cal., filed August 15, 2011); and
hh) Ameranth, Inc. v. OpenTable, Inc., Case No. 3-12-cv-00731
(S.D. Cal., filed March 27, 2012); and
ii) Ameranth, Inc. v. OpenTable, Inc., Case No. 3-13-cv-01840
(S.D. Cal., filed August 8, 2013).
3. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.304(a)(1), and 42.8(b)(3), Agilysys, Inc. identifies
Anthony Nimmo (Reg. No. 30,920) as lead counsel and Brian J. Lum (Reg. No.
54,282) as back-up counsel, both of Ice Miller LLP; Best Western International,
Inc. identifies Barry J. Schindler (Reg. No. 32,938) as lead counsel and Joshua
Clay Malino (Reg. No. 56,226) as back-up counsel, both of Greenberg Traurig
LLP; Domino’s Pizza, Inc. and Domino’s Pizza, LLC identify Frank A. Angileri
(Reg. No. 36,733) as lead counsel and Thomas W. Cunningham (Reg. No. 48,722)
as back-up counsel, both of Brooks Kushman P.C.; Apple Inc., Eventbrite, Inc.,
and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. identify James M. Heintz (Reg.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-17-
No. 41,828) as lead counsel and Ryan W. Cobb (Reg. No. 64,598) as back-up
counsel, both of DLA Piper LLP (US); Expedia, Inc., Fandango, LLC, Hotel
Tonight Inc., Hotwire, Inc., Hotels.com, L.P., Kayak Software Corp., Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc., Micros Systems, Inc., Orbitz, LLC, OpenTable, Inc., Papa
John’s USA, Inc., Stubhub, Inc., Ticketmaster, LLC, Travelocity.com LP, and
Wanderspot LLC identify Richard S. Zembek (Reg. No. 43,306) as lead counsel
and Gilbert A. Greene (Reg. No. 48,366) as back-up counsel, both of Fulbright &
Jaworski LLP; Grubhub, Inc. identifies Konrad Sherinian (Reg. No. 55,612) of the
Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC as lead counsel and David Lesht (Reg. No.
30,472) of the Law Offices of Eugene M. Cummings, P.C. as back-up counsel;
Hilton Resorts Corp., Hilton Worldwide, Inc., and Hilton International Co. identify
Emily C. Johnson (Reg. No. 60,269) as lead counsel and Kellie M. Johnson (Reg.
No. 63,834) as back-up counsel, both of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP;
Hyatt Corporation identifies Joseph S. Hanasz (Reg. No. 54,720) as lead counsel
and Laura Beth Miller (Reg. No. 37,680) as back-up counsel, both of Brinks
Gilson & Lione; Marriott International, Inc. identifies Michael G. Babbitt (Reg.
No. 59,288) as lead counsel and Reginald J. Hill (Reg. No. 39,225) as back-up
counsel, both of Jenner & Block LLP; Mobo Systems, Inc. identifies John R. Mills
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-18-
(Reg. No. 56,414) as lead counsel and Jose R. Rodriguez (Reg. No. 69,079) as
back-up counsel, both of Cooley LLP; Ordr.in, Inc. identifies Jason C. Chumney
(Reg. No. 54,781) as lead counsel and Nichole E. Martiak (Reg. No. 55,832) as
back-up counsel, both of SorinRand LLP; Pizza Hut, Inc. and Pizza Hut of
America, Inc. identify Mandala Wilson Decker (Reg. No. 53,781) as lead counsel
and William Charles Ferrell (Reg. No. 56,535) as back-up counsel, both of Stites &
Harbison, PLLC; Seamless North America, LLC identifies Robert C. Scheinfeld
(Reg. No. 31,300) as lead counsel and Eliot D. Williams (Reg. No. 50,822) as
back-up counsel, both of Baker Botts L.L.P.; Starbucks Corporation identifies Bing
Ai (Reg. No. 43,312) as lead counsel and Babak Tehranchi (Reg. No. 55,937) and
Patrick McKeever (Reg. No. 66,019) as back-up counsel, all of Perkins Coie LLP;
Usablenet, Inc. identifies Gunnar G. Leinberg (Reg. No. 35,584) as lead counsel
and Nicholas J. Gallo (Reg. No. 60,758), both of LeClairRyan, A Professional
Corporation.
4. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
Petitioners identify the following service information:
Anthony Nimmo Ice Miller LLP 200 W. Madison Street Suite 3500
John R. Mills Cooley LLP One Freedom Square Reston Town Center
Barry J. Schindler Greenberg Traurig, LLP 200 Park Avenue P.O. Box 677
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-19-
Chicago, IL 60606-3417 Tel: 312-726-8149 Fax: 312-726-6252
11951 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190-5656 Tel: 703-456-8171 Fax: 703-456-8100
Florham Park, NJ 07932 Tel: 973-360-7900 Fax: 973-301-8410
Frank A. Angileri Brooks Kushman P.C. 1000 Town Center 22nd Floor Southfield, MI 48075-1238 Tel: 248-358-4400 Fax: 248-358-3351
James M. Heintz DLA Piper LLP (US) One Fountain Square 11911 Freedom Drive Suite 300 Reston, VA 20190-5602 Tel: 703-773-4148 Fax: 703-773-5008
Richard S. Zembek Norton Rose Fulbright Fulbright Tower 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010 Tel: 713-651-5283 Fax: 713-651-5246
Konrad Sherinian Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC 1755 Park Street Suite 200 Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: 630-318-2606 Fax: 630-318-2605
Emily C. Johnson Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Robert S. Strauss Building 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-1564 Tel: 202-887-4099 Fax: 202-887-4288
Joseph S. Hanasz Brinks Gilson & Lione NBC Tower, Suite 3600 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive Chicago, IL 60611-5599 Tel: 312-840-3266 Fax: 312-321-4299
Michael G. Babbitt Jenner & Block LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456 Tel: 312-923-2879 Fax: 312-923-2979
Gunnar G. Leinberg LeClairRyan 70 Linden Oaks Suite 210 Rochester, NY 14625 Tel: 585-270-2103 Fax: 585-270-2163
Jason C. Chumney SorinRand LLP Two Tower Center Blvd. 24th Floor East Brunswick, NJ 08816 Tel: 732-839-0410 Fax: 732-393-1901
Mandala Wilson Decker Stites & Harbison, PLLC 400 West Market Street Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202-
Robert C. Scheinfeld Baker Botts L.L.P. 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112-4498
Bing Ai Perkins Coie LLP 11988 El Camino Real Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130-
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-20-
3352 Tel: 502-681-0521 Fax: 502-779-8229
Tel: 212-408-2512 Fax: 212-259-2512
3579 Tel: 858-720-5707 Fax: 858-720-5799
Petitioners hereby consent to electronic service at the following e-mail
address: [email protected].
B. Filing Date Requirements
Petitioners set forth below the filing date requirements for its Covered
Business Method Patent Review Petition as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.206.
1. Compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.304
As explained in sections below, this Petition complies with the requirements
of 37 C.F.R. § 42.304.
2. Proof of Service on Patent Owner (37 C.F.R. § 42.205(a))
Petitioners attach a Certificate of Service (Exhibit 1011) certifying that a
copy of the petition and supporting evidence is being served in its entirety on the
patent owner at the correspondence address of record for the subject patent, and
indicating, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)(iii), the date and manner of service and the
name and address of every person served.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-21-
3. The Filing Fee (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b) and 42.203(a))
Petitioners are submitting a payment in the amount of $30,500 for the post-
grant review fee and post-institution fee specified by 37 C.F.R. §42.15(b). The
amount consists of a payment of $12,000 for the post-grant review request and a
payment of $18,500 for post-institution fees. There is one claim in excess of 15.
To the extent that any additional fees are required to complete this Petition, the
Patent Office is hereby authorized by the undersigned to charge Deposit Account
06-2375.
C. Additional Disclosures
1. At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.208(c))
The Challenged Claims fail to comply with the written description and
definiteness requirements and are therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The
Challenged Claims also fail to claim statutory subject matter and are therefore
invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the reasons set forth below, it is “more likely
than not that at least one of the claims [of the ‘850 Patent] is unpatentable.” 35
U.S.C. § 324(a).
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-22-
2. Eligibility Based on Time of Filing (37 C.F.R. § 42.303)
This Petition is not filed in a period during which a petition for a post-grant
review of the patent would satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 321(c).
3. Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b))
Powers of attorney (Exhibit 1012) are attached.
4. A Legible Copy of Every Exhibit in the Exhibit List (37 C.F.R. § 42.63)
A copy of every piece of evidence relied upon, or referred to, is provided as
an Exhibit (Pet. Exhibits 1001-1065), and has been prepared in accordance with
the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.63(c) and 42.63(d). Because all Exhibits are
written in English, no translations are required. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e), an
Exhibit List including a brief description of each Exhibit is filed herewith.
III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a), Petitioners set forth below the Grounds for
Standing for a covered business method patent review petition.
A. Eligibility Based on Infringement Suit (37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a))
Petitioners are eligible to file this petition because Ameranth sued
Petitioners for infringement of the ‘850 Patent. See Exhibit 1008 (complaint
against Eventbrite, Inc.); Exhibit 1013 (complaint against Kayak Software Corp.);
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-23-
Exhibit 1014 (complaint against Hotels.com, L.P.); Exhibit 1015 (complaint
against Orbitz, LLC); Exhibit 1016 (complaint against Hotel Tonight Inc.); Exhibit
1017 (complaint against Travelocity.com LP); Exhibit 1018 (complaint against
Expedia, Inc.); Exhibit 1019 (complaint against Hotwire, Inc.); Exhibit 1020 (first
amended complaint against Wanderspot LLC); Exhibit 1021 (first amended
complaint against Micros Systems, Inc.); Exhibit 1022 (complaint against
Fandango, Inc.); Exhibit 1023 (complaint against StubHub, Inc.); Exhibit 1024
(complaint against TicketMaster, LLC and LiveNation Entertainment, Inc.);
Exhibit 1025 (second amended complaint against Pizza Hut, Inc., Pizza Hut of
America, Inc., Domino’s Pizza, Inc., Domino’s Pizza, LLC, Papa John’s USA,
Inc., OpenTable, Inc., Grubhub, Inc., and Seamless North America, LLC); Exhibit
1038 (first amended complaint against OpenTable, Inc.); Exhibit 1044 (complaint
against Apple Inc.); Exhibit 1045 (third amended complaint against Domino’s
Pizza, Inc. and Domino’s Pizza, LLC); Exhibit 1049 (complaint against Agilysys,
Inc.); Exhibit 1050 (complaint against Best Western International, Inc.); Exhibit
1052 (first amended complaint against Hilton Resorts Corp., Hilton Worldwide,
Inc., and Hilton International Co.); Exhibit 1053 (first amended complaint against
Hyatt Corporation); Exhibit 1054 (complaint against Marriott International, Inc.);
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-24-
Exhibit 1055 (complaint against Mobo Systems, Inc.); Exhibit 1056 (complaint
against Ordr.in, Inc.); Exhibit 1059 (complaint against Starbucks Corporation);
Exhibit 1060 (first amended complaint against Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, Inc.); and Exhibit 1061 (first amended complaint against Usablenet,
Inc.).
B. Eligibility Based on Lack of Estoppel (37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b))
Petitioners are not estopped from challenging the claims of the ‘850 Patent
on the grounds identified in this Petition.
C. The ‘850 Patent Is a CBM Patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a))
The AIA defines a covered business method (“CBM”) patent as “a patent
that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or
other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological
inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a).
According to the USPTO, “[a] patent having one or more claims directed to
a covered business method is a covered business method patent for purposes of the
review, even if the patent includes additional claims.” Exhibit 1026, 77 Fed. Reg.
157, p. 48736. The USPTO further stated that “[t]he AIA provides for a challenge
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-25-
to one or more claims within such a covered business method patent. The AIA
does not limit the claims that may be challenged to those that are directed
specifically to the covered business method.” Exhibit 1027, 77 Fed. Reg. 157, p.
48709. Therefore, if even only one claim meets the definition of a CBM and is not
directed to a technological invention, the entire patent is considered a CBM patent,
and all claims therein may be challenged.
As explained in detail below, the Challenged Claims meet the definition of a
CBM, and the claims are not directed to a technological invention. The ‘850
Patent is therefore a CBM patent subject to AIA § 18 review.
1. Claims 1-16 Meet the Definition of a CBM
The USPTO noted that the AIA’s legislative history demonstrates that
“financial product or service,” as recited in the AIA’s definition of a CBM patent,
should be “interpreted broadly,” encompassing patents “claiming activities that are
financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a
financial activity.” Exhibit 1026, p. 48735. Thus, “financial product or service is
not limited to the products or services of the financial services industry.” Exhibit
1026, p. 48736. Rather, “[t]he term financial is an adjective that simply means
relating to monetary matters.” Exhibit 1028, SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp.,
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-26-
No. CBM2012-0001, Paper 36 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013) p. 23. Senator Schumer,
co-author of § 18, stated, “To meet this [eligibility] requirement, the patent need
not recite a specific financial product or service. Rather the patent claims must
only be broad enough to cover a financial product or service.” Exhibit 1043, 157
Cong. Rec. S1365 (daily ed. March 8, 2011) (Sen. Schumer). See also Exhibit
1029, Matal, J., A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act Part
II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. Bar. J. No. 4 pp. 635-36 (“financial product or service,
including . . . marketing, customer interfaces . . . [and] management of data . . . ”).
The Challenged Claims of the ‘850 Patent squarely meet the definition of a
CBM also because of the subject matter as claimed. The ‘850 Patent is directed to
an information management and synchronous communications system for
generating and transmitting menus in the hospitality industry, e.g., for restaurant
ordering, reservations and wait-list management (Claims 1-11) and an information
management and synchronous communications system for use with wireless
handheld computing devices and the internet in processing hospitality applications
and data in the hospitality industry, e.g., for restaurant ordering, reservations and
wait-list management (Claims 12-16). The operations, functions and results of the
claimed systems in Claims 1-16 are managing information and communication for
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-27-
activities that are financial in nature. See, e.g., Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent, Claim 2,
15:12-14 (“[a]n information management synchronous communications
systems . . . wherein the second menu is a restaurant menu”); 1:7-9 (“[t]his
invention relates to an information management and synchronous communications
system and method for generation of computerized menus for restaurants . . . .”).
Ameranth states that hospitality information technology systems performing
functions such as “online/mobile ordering, hotel/restaurant reservations, event
ticketing, payment processing/mobile wallets on smart phones, frequency, voice
integration and related functionality” require the use of Ameranth’s “patented
inventions for synchronized operations.” Exhibit 1004, Ameranth’s July 2, 2012
Press Release at 2. Therefore, under AIA Section 18, the ‘850 Patent covers a
“financial product or service” as a covered business method patent and is not a
patent for technological inventions. Accordingly, the ‘850 Patent is a covered
business method patent under AIA Section 18 and is eligible for the CBM review.
The Challenged Claims squarely meet the definition of a CBM also because
they are intended to cover “ancillary activities related to a financial product or
service,” namely “customer interfaces, Web site management and functionality,
transmission or management of data, servicing, . . . customer communications, and
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-28-
back office operations—e.g., payment processing . . . .” Exhibit 1043, 157 Cong.
Rec. S1365; see also Exhibit 1029, p. 636 (“customer interfaces . . . [and]
management of data.”). For example, both independent Claims 1 and 12 recite an
“information management and synchronous communications system”; Claim 1
recites menus displayed in a graphical user interface; and Claim 12 recites a web
page; and Claim 14 recites information entered on the web page. Exhibit 1031,
‘850 Patent, 14:48-15:11; 16:1-22; 16:32-36. See also Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent,
Claim 2, 15:12-14 (“information management and synchronous system . . . wherein
the second menu is a restaurant menu”). Likewise, the ‘850 Patent states that the
invention is specifically directed to user interfaces and management of data – “This
invention relates to an information management and synchronous
communications system and method for generation of computerized menus for
restaurants and other applications with specialized display and synchronous
communications requirements . . . .” Exhibit 1031 ‘850 Patent, 1:7-11 (emphasis
added); see also Exhibit 1031 ‘850 Patent, 2:63-67 (“A further object of the
present invention is to provide an improved information management and
synchronous communications system which . . . incorporates a user-friendly
operator interface and displays menus in a readily comprehensible format.”).
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-29-
Furthermore, in the pending litigations against Petitioners, the patent owner
Ameranth has alleged that financial products and services infringe the ‘850 Patent.
Exhibit 1048, Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to Micros Systems, at 2 (“The
‘Micros Restaurant Management System,’ ‘MICROS RMS’ or ‘Accused System’
means and includes the following: . . . point of sale restaurant management
systems . . . customer loyalty and gift card systems . . . online and mobile food
ordering systems . . . online and mobile table management and reservation
systems . . . mobile payment systems (e.g., Tabbedout, iCard Mobile Wallet, and
NFC Pay-at-the-Table) . . . ”). Ameranth also states that hospitality information
technology systems performing functions such as payment processing/mobile
wallets on smart phones, online/mobile ordering and event ticketing require the use
of Ameranth’s patented invention. Exhibit 1004, Ameranth’s July 2, 2012 Press
Release at 2 (“Modern hospitality information technology systems performing
functions such as online/mobile ordering, hotel/restaurant reservations, event
ticketing, payment processing/mobile wallets on smart phones, frequency, voice
integration and related functionality require the use of Ameranth’s patented
inventions for synchronized operations”). Therefore, the ‘850 Patent is deemed to
cover a financial product or service. Exhibit 1043, 157 Cong. Rec. S1365
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-30-
(“Likewise, if a patent holder alleges that a financial product or service infringes
its patent, that patent shall be deemed to cover a ‘financial product or service’ for
purposes of this amendment regardless of whether the claims specifically reference
the type of product o[r] service accused of infringing.”).
2. Claims 1-16 Are Not Directed to a “Technological Invention”
The AIA excludes “patents for technological inventions” from the definition
of covered business method patents. AIA § 18(d)(2). To determine whether a
claim is directed to a technological invention, “the following will be considered on
a case-by-case basis: whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a
technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a
technical problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) (emphasis
added). Both prongs of the test must be met. Exhibit 1026, p. 48736 (explaining
that such a conjunctive test represents “the best policy choice”). “The ‘patents for
technological inventions’ exception only excludes those patents whose novelty
turns on a technological innovation over the prior art and are concerned with a
technical problem which is solved with a technical solution and which requires the
claims to state the technical features which the inventor desires to protect.”
Exhibit 1026, p. 48735.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-31-
If even one claim of a patent is not directed to a “technological invention,”
the exception does not apply. Exhibit 1026, p. 48736. According to the USPTO, a
claim that contains the following language or structure is likely not directed to a
technological invention under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b):
(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as computer
hardware, communication or computer networks,
software, memory, computer readable storage medium,
scanners, display devices or databases, or specialized
machines, such as an ATM or point of sale device.
(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to
accomplish a process or method, even if that process or
method is novel and non-obvious.
(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,
expected, or predictable result of that combination.
Exhibit 1030, 77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48763-64. Simply reciting technological
features or combining known technology in a new way is not sufficient:
[The technological inventions exception] is not meant to
exclude patents that use known technology to accomplish a
business process or method of conducting business – whether or
not that process or method appears to be novel. The
technological invention exception is also not intended to
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-32-
exclude a patent simply because it recites technology. For
example, the recitation of computer hardware, communication
or computer networks, software, memory, computer-readable
storage medium, scanners, display devices or databases,
specialized machines, such as an ATM or point of sale device,
or other known technologies, does not make a patent a
technological invention. In other words, a patent is not a
technological invention because it combines known technology
in a new way to perform data processing operations.
Exhibit 1043, 157 Cong. Rec. S1364 (daily ed. March 8, 2011) (Sen. Schumer).
The Challenged Claims fail to meet any part of the “technological invention”
test. First, as explained in detail below, to the extent the claimed subject matter
arguably includes technical features, the USPTO recognized that these were neither
novel nor unobvious. Second, the Challenged Claims are not directed at solving a
technical problem, but rather directed at solving the business problem of how to
become more user friendly through computerizing non-computerized processes.
See Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 3:32-35 (“solving the problem of converting
paper-based menus or Windows® PC-based menu screens to small PDA-sized
displays and Web pages”). Furthermore, the alleged invention claimed in the ‘850
Patent is not a technical solution as explained below.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-33-
Regarding the first prong of the “technological invention” test (whether the
claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and
unobvious over the prior art), the ‘850 Patent claims do not recite a “technological
feature” that is novel and nonobvious. Indeed, the ‘850 Patent admits that “[t]he
software applications for performing the functions falling within the described
invention can be written in any commonly used computer language. The discrete
programming steps are commonly known and thus programming details are not
necessary to a full description of the invention.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at
11:43-48; see also id. at 14:18-29 (“The inventive concept encompasses the
generation of a menu in any context known to those skilled in the art where an
objective is to facilitate display of the menu so as to enable selection of items from
that menu . . . . Any display and transmission means known to those skilled in the
art is equally usable with respect to menus generated in accordance with the
claimed invention.”). “[T]he mere recitation that the method is computer
implemented or that the process is automated, using known techniques such as
storing information, does not preclude the patent from qualifying as a covered
business method patent.” Exhibit 1036, Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions,
LLC, No. CBM2012-00007 (BJM), Paper 16 at 18 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013). To
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-34-
the extent the claimed subject matter arguably includes technical features, the
USPTO recognized that these were neither novel nor unobvious:
Regarding claim 1, Cupps discloses an information
management and synchronous communication system for
generating menus comprising: a central processing unit, a data
storage device connected to said central processing unit, an
operating system including a graphical user interface (see figure
2), a first menu stored on said data storage device, application
software for generating a second menu from said first menu,
wherein the application software facilitates the generation of the
second menu by allowing selection of items from the first
menu, addition of items to the second menu and assignment of
parameters to items in the second menu using the graphical user
interface of said operating system (see col. 9 lines 42-67).
* * *
Regarding claim 3, Cupps discloses an information
management and synchronous communications system,
wherein the second menu is capable of being displayed on the
display screen of a wireless computing device (see col. 4, lines
1-55).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Cupps discloses an information
management and synchronous communications system,
wherein selections from the second menu are capable of being
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-35-
transmitted to a receiving computer by wireless link (see figures
1-2).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Cupps discloses an information
management and synchronous communications system in,
wherein the computer network is the internet; and selections
from the second menu are capable of being transmitted to a
receiving computer via the internet (see col. 9, lines 16-65 and
figure 8-10).
Regarding claims 8-11, Cupps discloses an information
management and synchronous communications system,
wherein the second menu is created in conformity with
hypertext markup language or extensible markup language (see
col. 10, lines 8-56 and figures 7-10).
Exhibit 1035, ‘850 Office Action of May 22, 2001 at 2-3.
Regarding the second prong, (whether the claimed subject matter as a
whole . . . solves a technical problem using a technical solution), the ‘850 Patent
is neither directed at a technical problem nor do the Challenged Claims provide a
technical solution. Based on the ‘850 Patent’s own description, the problem
allegedly solved by the alleged invention is not a technical problem – it is a
business problem of how to become more user friendly through computerizing
non-computerized processes. See Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 3:32-35 (“solving
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-36-
the problem of converting paper-based menus or Windows® PC-based menu
screens to small PDA-sized displays and Web pages”).
Furthermore the alleged invention claimed in the ‘850 Patent is not a
technical solution. In this regard, to the extent that hardware is recited in the
claims, the ‘850 Patent admits that this is conventional hardware rather than a
technical solution. Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 5:33-37 (“The preferred
embodiment of the present invention uses typical hardware elements in the form
of a computer workstation, operating system and application software elements
which configure the hardware elements for operation in accordance with the
present invention.”) (emphasis added). To the extent Ameranth contends it claims
a “software solution,” conspicuously absent is any algorithm that ties to the various
limitations in the Challenged Claims. Instead, only conventional software
packages, such as Microsoft Windows® and Microsoft Office®, are disclosed. See
Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 10:63-11:3. “Mere recitation of known technologies,
such as computer hardware, communication or computer networks, software,
memory, computer-readable storage medium, scanners, display devices or
databases, or specialized machines,” or reciting “use of known prior art technology
to accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method is novel and
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-37-
nonobvious” will “not typically render a patent a technological invention.” See,
e.g., Exhibit 1030, p. 48764. Ameranth’s mere recitation of the same fails to do so
here.
Because Claims 1-16 of the ‘850 Patent are not directed to a “technological
invention” within the meaning of AIA § 18, the claims are thus encompassed by
the AIA’s definition of a CBM.
IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED
Petitioners set forth below the precise relief requested for each claim
challenged in its CBM Patent Review Petition as required by 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.304(b).
A. Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(1))
Petitioner requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 321 and AIA § 18 of Claims 1-
16 of the ‘850 Patent and the cancellation of these claims as unpatentable.
B. Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(2))
Petitioner requests that each of Claims 1-16 be cancelled as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-38-
C. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3))
1. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
In the context of a CBM review, a claim in an unexpired patent “shall be
given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent
in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The “broadest reasonable
construction” means that “the words of the claim will be given their plain meaning
unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” Exhibit 1027,
p. 48699 (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “In the absence
of a special definition in the specification, a claim term is presumed to take on its
ordinary and customary meaning, a meaning that the term would have to a person
of ordinary skill in the art.” Exhibit 1027, pp. 48699-700 (citing In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364).
As set forth in the USPTO’s Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, a party to a
CBM review may provide “a simple statement that the claim terms are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation [(“BRI”)], as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the disclosure.” Exhibit 1030, p.
48764. As the USPTO has further stated, “[P]etitioners are not required to define
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-39-
every claim term, but rather merely provide a statement that the claim terms are
presumed to take on their ordinary and customary meaning, and point out any
claim term that has a special meaning and the definition in the specification.”
Exhibit 1027, p. 48700.
Accordingly, because the ‘850 Patent has not yet expired,6 Petitioners
hereby provide their “simple statement” that the claims terms should be given their
BRI for the purposes of this proceeding (but for the purposes of this proceeding
only7). For each claim term in the ‘850 Patent, the BRI is the ordinary and
6 The ‘850 Patent expires on Sep. 21, 2019.
7 Petitioners advocate the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) for the
claim terms of the ‘850 Patent for the purposes of this CBM review only. Claim
construction is analyzed under a different legal standard for the purposes of
litigation. See, e.g., In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1298-99
(Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, Petitioners reserve the right to advance different claim
constructions in connection with litigation in federal court, including in connection
with the currently pending litigation identified above.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-40-
customary meaning of the term.8 To the extent the Board would like additional
clarification regarding the ordinary and customary meaning of certain key terms in
the challenged claims, Petitioners provide that information in the table below:
Claim Term Relevant Claims
Ordinary and Customary Meaning
Source
Web page Claims 1, 12-16
a document on the World Wide Web
Microsoft Computer Dictionary at 479 (4th ed. 1999); Exhibit 1042 at ¶ 13.
Web server Claims 12 & 16
server software that uses HTTP to serve up HTML documents and any associated files and scripts when requested by a client, such as a Web browser
Microsoft Computer Dictionary at 224 (4th ed. 1999); Exhibit 1042 at ¶ 14.
wherein [the] applications and data are synchronized
Claims 12 & 16
This is a method step having its plain and ordinary meaning under the BRI.
parameters being selected from the modifier and submodifier menus
Claim 1 This is a method step having its plain and ordinary meaning under the BRI.
central Claim 1 The computational and control Microsoft
8 Petitioners reserve the right to argue that element (g) of Claim 1 of the ‘850
Patent is governed by § 112, ¶ 6 and lacks corresponding structure in view of the
claim construction standard governing the litigation pending in district court.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-41-
processing unit (CPU)
unit of a computer. Computer Dictionary at 115 (4th ed. 1999)
operating system
Claim 1 The software that controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources such as memory, CPU time, disk space, and peripheral devices.
Microsoft Computer Dictionary at 321 (4th ed. 1999)
V. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER § 112
A. Claims 1-16 Are Indefinite for Mixing Apparatus and Method Elements
If a single patent claim recites both an apparatus element and a method step,
the claim is invalid as indefinite as a matter of law. IPXL Holdings, LLC v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing M.P.E.P.
§ 2173.05(p)(II) (1999)). The reason for this bright line rule is that one of ordinary
skill cannot determine the boundaries of such a claim, because it is unclear whether
infringement occurs when one creates the system or when someone actually uses
the system. IPXL, 430 F.3d at 1384; see also Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL,
LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming summary judgment of
invalidity for indefiniteness where apparatus claims recited the step of
transmitting).
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-42-
Claims 1-16 are facially invalid as a matter of law because each independent
claim is an apparatus claim (a system claim) that impermissibly requires
performance of at least one method step. For example, Claim 1 of the ‘850 Patent
is directed to “[a]n information management and synchronous communications
system,” but also recites a method step: “parameters being selected from the
modifier and submodifier menus.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 14:48-15:11.
Similarly, Claim 12 is directed to a “system” but recites a method step:
“applications and data are synchronized between the central database, at least one
wireless handheld computing device, at least one Web server and at least one Web
page.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 16:1-23 (emphasis added). Because Claims 1-
16 are system claims requiring the performance of a method step, each claim is
invalid.
Claims 1-16 contain the same flaws that were found fatal in IPXL and its
progeny. The IPXL claim was directed to a system, but also recited a method step:
“the user uses the input means to either change the predicted transaction
information or accept the displayed transaction type and transaction parameters.”
IPXL Holdings, 430 F.3d at 1384. Similarly, in Katz, the claim was directed to a
system with an “interface means for providing automated voice messages . . . to
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-43-
certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers
digitally enter data.” In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d
1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The IPXL and Katz claims were directed to both a
system and a method, and thus were invalid as indefinite. IPXL Holdings, 430
F.3d at 1384 (“[I]t is unclear whether infringement of claim 25 occurs when one
creates a system that allows the user to change the predicted transaction
information or accept the displayed transaction, or whether infringement occurs
when the user actually uses the input means to change transaction information or
uses the input means to accept a displayed transaction.”); In re Katz, 639 F.3d at
1318 (“Katz’s claims [] create confusion as to when direct infringement occurs
because they are directed both to systems and to actions performed by ‘individual
callers.’”).
As in IPXL and Katz, an accused infringer cannot determine whether the
Challenged Claims are infringed when the claimed system is supplied or when a
user performs the method steps in the claims. For example, it is unclear if
independent Claim 12 of the ‘850 Patent is infringed when the claimed system is
supplied, or only when the “applications and data are synchronized.” Likewise, it
is unclear if Claim 1 of the ‘850 Patent is infringed when the claim system is
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-44-
supplied, or only when “parameters” have been “selected from the modifier and
submodifier menus.”
In Katz, the Federal Circuit summarily rejected a “functional limitation”
argument, unequivocally stating “[l]ike the language used in the claim at issue in
IPXL (‘wherein . . . the user uses’), the language used in Katz’s claims
(‘wherein . . . callers digitally enter data’ and ‘wherein . . . callers
provide . . . data’) is directed to user actions, not system capabilities.” In re Katz,
639 F.3d at 1318 (emphasis added). Consequently, the Federal Circuit affirmed
the district court’s ruling invalidating claims reciting both an apparatus and a
method of using that apparatus. Id. at 1314. The exact same rationale applies to
the Challenged Claims. See Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 15:10-11 (“said
parameters being selected from the modifier and sub-modifier menus”); Exhibit
1031 ‘850 Patent at 16:15 (“wherein application and data are synchronized”);
Exhibit 1031 ‘850 Patent at 8:24-28 (“To accomplish this, first the modifier to be
assigned is selected, then the menu item on the tree view that is to be assigned the
modifier is clicked on and then Edit>Assign Modifier is clicked on. Or, the
modifier can simply be dragged and dropped onto the menu item to link them.”);
Exhibit 1031 ‘850 Patent at 12:56-57 (“The information entered by the user is
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-45-
transmitted to the server.”); Exhibit 1031 ‘850 Patent at 11:36-42 (“For example, a
reservation made online is automatically communicated to the backoffice server
which then synchronizes with all the wireless handheld devices wirelessly.
Similarly, changes made on any of the wireless handheld devices will be reflected
instantaneously on the backoffice server and the other handheld devices.”). Thus,
the Challenged Claims are invalid under § 112.
B. The Challenged Claims Do Not Satisfy the Written Description Requirement.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, the specification shall contain a written description
of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such
full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to
which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the
same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying
out his invention. Therefore, 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires that a patent convey with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date, the applicant
was in possession of the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1; M.P.E.P.
§ 2163.02; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (en banc). “[T]he written description requirement prevents an applicant
from claiming subject matter that was not adequately described in the specification
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-46-
as filed. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which
are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description
requirement.” M.P.E.P. § 2163(I)(B).
“To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, para.
1, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119,
120, or 365(c), each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently
supported in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim
‘is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown
that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent
application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.’” M.P.E.P.
§ 2163(II)(A)(3)(b) ) (quoting Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
1998)). See also Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158-59 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(claims to generic cup shape were not entitled to filing date of parent application
which disclosed “conical cup” in view of the disclosure of the parent application
stating the advantages and importance of the conical shape). “One shows that one
is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed
limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107
F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis in original) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-47-
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)); ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris
Med. Sys., Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (affirming invalidity for lack
of written description of claims to genus, when only a species was disclosed in the
specification).
1. The ‘850 Patent Does Not Provide a Written Description Sufficient to Describe the “Synchronous Communications System” Claimed in Claims 12-16 When Only Use of a Local Database is Described in the Original Specification
The specification fails to provide required written description support
necessary to establish that the Applicants were in possession of the full scope of
the Challenged Claims of the ‘850 Patent at the time of filing of the original
specification. Specifically, the Challenged Claims claim synchronization. For
example, Claim 12 recites “[a]n information management and synchronous
communications system” wherein “applications and data are synchronized between
the central database, at least one wireless handheld computing device, at least one
Web server and at least one Web page.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 16:1-17.
Like Claim 12, the preamble of Claim 1 recites an “information management and
synchronous communications system.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 14:48-49.
The specification of the ‘850 Patent describes only one synchronization
activity – that of a database on the handheld unit with a master database:
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-48-
[A]n automated download procedure is provided to transfer the
desktop database onto a handheld device and/or Web page.
* * *
The preferred embodiment also supports multiple databases,
thus providing for the creation and storing of different menu
databases on handheld devices such as breakfast, lunch or
dinner menus.
Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 9:66-10:1, 10:8-12.
Those databases are updated from a master database through a database
download when:
If the configuration is deemed acceptable, the handheld device
is connected to the desktop PC to ensure that a connection has
been established; the POS application on the handheld device is
exited and File>Download Database is clicked on or the
Download Database icon from the toolbar is clicked on. If
there is an existing menu database on the handheld device, the
system will ask if the existing database should be replaced. Yes
is clicked if existing database replacement is desired.
Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 8:51-59. The only disclosure of implementation of the
synchronization function is that “the menu generation approach of the present
invention uses Windows CE,” which provides “built-in synchronization between
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-49-
handheld devices.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 10:64-11:1. The ‘850 Patent also
discloses use of web sites as part of the synchronization process, but only as
another method of downloading an updated database to a handheld unit:
Advanced database functions are provided in the preferred
embodiment of the invention, including an automated download
process onto handheld devices and/or Web sites. In the
preferred embodiment, the menu generation system of the
present invention uses an API called ActiveX Data Objects
(“ADO”) for database access. ADO is useful in a variety of
settings. It is built on top of OLE DB and can be used to talk to
databases and, in the future, any data source with any OLE DB
driver.
Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 10:34-42. These APIs for web-based database access
are also standard components that are part of the Windows operating system.
Through the Internet, a “single point of entry works to keep all wireless handheld
devices and linked Web sites in synch with the backoffice server (central database)
so that the different components are in equilibrium at any given time and an overall
consistency is achieved.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 11:32-36.
In concurrent litigation, however, Ameranth asserts that the claims should be
interpreted such that a “synchronous communications system” includes any
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-50-
communications regardless of whether the handheld device includes a database
that contains a local copy or even a local copy of what is “synchronized in real
time with analogous information comprising the master menu.” That is, Ameranth
asserts that the claimed “information management and synchronous
communications system” of the ‘850 Patent encompasses not merely (1) a system
that “synchronizes” information stored in a central database with information
stored in a database or locally resident on a connected handheld device but also (2)
simply sending information stored in a central database through Internet
communications to a handheld device. Exhibit 1022, Ameranth’s Fandango
Complaint, at ¶ 21 (“Enabling ticketing/ticket sales/ticket purchases and other
hospitality functions via iPhone, Android, and other internet-enabled wireless
handheld computing devices as well as via Web pages . . . and synchronizing
applications and data, including but not limited to applications and data relating to
orders, between at least one database, wireless handheld computing devices, and at
least one Web server and Web page . . . allowing information to be entered via
wireless handheld computing devices, transmitted over the internet, and
automatically communicated to at least one database and to Web pages”).
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-51-
As established above, the original specification only arguably supports one
of these species – synchronizing information with a central database and a
handheld device’s existing local copy of same. Accordingly, the originally filed
specification fails to provide the written description support necessary to establish
that the Applicants were in possession of the full scope of the genus of
“synchronous communications,” as later recited in every Challenged Claim added
in the ‘850 Patent. Every Challenged Claim of the ‘850 Patent is therefore invalid
under § 112.
For example, the M.P.E.P. provides:
The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot
always support expansive claim language and satisfy the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 ‘merely by clearly describing
one embodiment of the thing claimed.’ LizardTech v. Earth
Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 U.S.P.Q.2d 1731,
1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in
the art would understand applicant to have invented, and been
in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In
LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless
discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because the specification
taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT,
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-52-
and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a
more generic method. See also Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at
1159, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998), wherein the
disclosure of a species in the parent application did not suffice
to provide written description support for the genus in the child
application.”)
M.P.E.P. § 2163; see also Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d
1313, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991)) (requiring an applicant to “recount his invention in such
detail that his future claims can be determined to be encompassed within his
original creation”); see also PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d
1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The [written description] requirement operates as a
timing mechanism to ensure fair play in the presentation of claims after the original
filing date and to guard against manipulation of that process by the patent
applicant.”).
Accordingly, because the ‘850 Patent fails to disclose both of the species of
“synchronous communications” Ameranth now claims, the Challenged Claims are
invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-53-
2. Claims 1-11 Fail to Satisfy the Written Description and
Definiteness Requirements
Claims 1-11 of the ‘850 Patent fail to meet the written description
requirement and definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the following
additional reason: the limitation “application software for generating a second
menu from said first menu and transmitting said second menu to a wireless
handheld computing device or Web page” is not supported by the patent
specification and is indefinite.
First, Claim 1 fails to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, because the limitation “transmitting said second menu to a . . . Web Page” is
not described in the specification. The patent discloses transmission of a menu to a
wireless handheld computing device or a web server, but not to a web page.
Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 7:4-12. Despite describing the invention as “solving
the problem of converting paper-based menus or Window® PC-based menu
screens to small PDA-sized displays and Web pages,” the specification fails to
describe transmitting a menu to a web page. See Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 3:32-
35. The specification states that an “automated download procedure” is provided
to “transfer the desktop database onto a handheld device and/or Web page.”
Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 9:63-10:1. Similarly, the specification indicates the
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-54-
“menu generation approach of the present invention” provides a “means to
instantly download the menu configuration onto, e.g., a handheld device or Web
page.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 3:15-19. The specification however fails to
describe an “automated download procedure” or any means for downloading a
menu to a web page. The specification discloses a seven-step process for building
a menu ending in the step of downloading the menu database to a handheld device.
Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 7:4-12 (emphasis added). Conspicuously absent is
any step or description of downloading or transferring a menu to a web page. The
only teaching of “transmitting” in the context of web pages is the transmission of
URLs from a web browser to a web server or the transmission of documents from a
web server to a web browser. Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 12:21-51. Neither of
these descriptions relates to transmitting a menu to a web page. Thus, the
specification fails to convey with reasonable particularity that the patentee was in
possession of the claimed subject matter, and Claim 1 is therefore invalid under 35
U.S.C. § 112. Because Claims 2-11 each depend from Claim 1, these claims are
also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Second, Claim 1 fails to meet the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, because the limitation “transmitting said second menu to a . . . Web Page” is
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-55-
non-sensical. A “web page” is a document. Exhibit 1042, Larson Decl., ¶ 13. The
ordinary and customary meaning of a “web page” at the time of the effective filing
date of the applications of the ‘850 Patent was “[a] document on the World Wide
Web.” Exhibit 1042B, MICROSOFT® PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY 479
(4th ed. 1999); Exhibit 1042, Larson Decl., ¶ 13 (citing same). Likewise, the
ordinary and customary meaning of “World Wide Web” indicates documents on
the World Wide Web are called “web pages.” Exhibit 1042B at 486.
Consequently, the second menu must be transmitted to documents on the “world
wide web” (albeit non-sensical). Exhibit 1042, Larson Decl., ¶ 19. The patentee
did not otherwise act as a lexicographer and “clearly set forth a definition” of “web
page” in the specification. See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d
1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Exhibit 1042, Larson Decl., ¶ 12.
In the Menusoft case, Ameranth attempted to rewrite the “transmitting . . . to
a Web page” claim language to instead read transmitting “to a device that can
receive and render a web page visible.” See Exhibit 1037, Defendants’ Claim
Construction Brief on “Transmitting . . . To a Web Page” at 4 (quoting Shamos
Expert Report at ¶ 97 (“Under the Court’s construction, element 1g requires
software having the capability to transmit to both handheld devices and Web
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-56-
pages. I understand this phrasing to mean that the software must be able to send to
a wireless handheld device and to a device that can receive and render a Web page
visible, e.g. a browser.”)). But Ameranth’s attempted rewrite is contrary to the
basic teachings in the ‘850 Patent regarding a browser, documents viewed via a
browser, and a hyperlink. Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 12:21-33. A “web page” is
simply not a device or a combination of a browser and a device. Exhibit 1042,
Larson Decl., ¶ 17.
Accordingly, because the limitation “transmitting . . . to a Web page” is
indefinite, Claim 1 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Because Claims 2-11 each
depend from Claim 1, these claims are also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER § 101
A. Section 101 Analysis
Section 101 defines the four broad categories of patentable subject matter as
“any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
any new and useful improvement thereof . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2006). Although
Section 101 encompasses a broad domain of patentable subject matter, the
Supreme Court has recognized “three specific exceptions to § 101’s broad patent-
eligibility principles: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.”
Bilski II, 130 S. Ct. at 3225; see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-57-
Labs., Inc.,
132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012). The Supreme Court’s guidance on the patent
eligibility analysis was recently confirmed by a majority of judges in the recent
CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir.
2013) (en banc). See Compression Tech. Solutions LLC v. EMC Corp., 2013 WL
2368039, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2013) (“[B]oth the per curium opinion by
Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, and Wallach as well as the partial concurrences
by Chief Judge Rader and Judges Linn, Moore, and O’Malley specifically endorse
this approach.”).9
Claims directed to “an abstract idea preemptive of a fundamental concept or
idea that would foreclose innovation” are not eligible for patent protection.
9 The CLS Bank opinion “does not otherwise modify the holdings of the
prior Federal Circuit cases that came before [(e.g., Bilski, Cybersource,
Dealertrack, Fort Properties, and Bancorp)] or provide a clear test for patent
eligibility under Section 101 because “a majority of the judges could only agree on
the holding of the case and not on a legal rationale for their conclusion.” See
Compression Tech. Solutions, 2013 WL 2368039, at *4 n.1.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-58-
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Bilski II, 130
S. Ct. at 3231. Inventions with specific applications or improvements to
technologies in the marketplace may not be so abstract that they “override the
statutory language and framework of the Patent Act.” Research Corp. Techs., Inc.
v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The key question is
whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe a law of nature or an
abstract idea. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. A claim is not directed to statutory
subject matter where it merely recites an abstract idea and adds additional steps
that merely reflect routine, conventional activity of those who work in the field.
Id. at 1298. Furthermore, the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot
be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [abstract idea] to a particular
technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski
II, 130 S. Ct. at 3230 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191-92). There is a danger when
a patented process amounts to no more than instruction to apply the natural law, or
otherwise forecloses more further invention than the underlying discovery could
reasonably justify. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301.
The basic character of a claim “drawn to an abstract idea is not changed by
claiming only its performance by computers.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-59-
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “The mere recitation of
computer implementation or hardware in combination with an abstract idea [] is
not itself a significant, meaningful limitation on the scope of [] claims.” Exhibit
1063, SAP Am., Inc. v Versata Dev. Grp., No. CBM2012-0001, Paper 70 (P.T.A.B.
June 11, 2013) p. 30. Simply adding a computer limitation, without more, “does
not impose meaningful limits on the claim’s scope.” See, e.g., Fort Props., Inc. v.
Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1323-24 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CLS Bank, 717
F.3d at 1287 (“[A]dding generic computer functions to facilitate performance
provides no substantial limitation and therefore is not ‘enough’ to satisfy § 101”).
Rather, the computer “must play a significant part in permitting the claimed
method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for
permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a
computer for performing calculations.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
B. The Challenged Claims Impermissibly Claim an Abstract Idea
The ‘850 Patent recognizes that the basic idea of generating menus has
existed for many years in the hospitality industry. Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at
1:19-23. The ‘850 Patent acknowledges that “pen and paper have prevailed” as the
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-60-
traditional approach for ordering merchandise using menus. Exhibit 1031, ‘850
Patent at 1:23-27 (“[O]rdering prepared foods has historically been done verbally,
either directly to a waiter or over the telephone, whereupon the placed order is
recorded on paper by the recipient or instantly filled.”). The ‘850 Patent credits the
prior art for automating the traditional approach for generating menus using
computers and wireless handheld devices. Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 1:30-33
(“[V]arious forms of digital wireless communication devices are in common use,
e.g., digital wireless messengers and pagers . . . portable laptop and handheld
devices.”). Indeed, the ‘850 Patent acknowledges the prior art systems are
sometimes referred to as “electronic malls” or “virtual store fronts” because they
“enable a user to choose among several retailers’ goods.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850
Patent at 12:45-51. The ‘850 Patent also sets forth the “conventional” method of
electronic shopping using a menu:
The user may conventionally search for an item by entering a
key word search query in a box on a form. When a user selects
an item, the server may provide a linked form that describes
that item in further detail. The user may also conventionally
enter ordering information into boxes on the form, such as the
type and quantity of the item desired. The information entered
by the user is transmitted to the server. The user may select
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-61-
multiple items in this manner and then enter a credit card
number to pay for the purchases. The retailer processes the
transaction and ships the order to the customer. As can be
appreciated, ordering merchandise can also be done from
menus.
Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent 12:51-62 (emphasis added).
Claims 1-11 cover nothing more than the abstract idea of generating menus.
Claims 1-11 are directed to a computerized system for facilitating “efficient
generation of computerized menus” using a general purpose computer.10 Exhibit
1031, ‘850 Patent 3:15-23 (describing the invention’s “menu generation
10 Although the claims are written as system claims, the underlying invention
for patent-eligibility purposes is an abstract idea for marketing goods and services.
As the Federal Circuit explained in CyberSource, the type of claim is not as
important as “the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” 654 F.3d at
1374. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that “a machine, system, medium, or the
like may in some cases be equivalent to an abstract mental process for purposes of
patent ineligibility.” Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,
687 F.3d 1266, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-62-
approach”). In claiming “an information management and synchronous
communications system for generating and transmitting menus,” the claims are
directed to nothing more than a general purpose computer using general purpose
programming. Indeed, the specification states that the system employs “typical”
computer equipment, such as a computer workstation, operating system, modem,
display screen, keyboard, mouse, and optional removable storage devices (e.g.,
floppy drive or CD ROM drive). Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent 5:33-44. Moreover,
the ‘850 Patent acknowledges that the general purpose “programming steps are
[so] commonly known” that “details are not necessary” to disclose. Exhibit 1031,
‘850 Patent at 11:43-48. The ‘850 Patent also recognizes that these steps for
“restaurant ordering, reservations, and wait-list management” were performed by
humans years before the patent application. Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 1:19-27
(“[O]rdering prepared foods has historically been done verbally, either directly to a
waiter or over the telephone, whereupon the placed order is recorded on paper by
the recipient or instantly filled.”). In essence, the ‘850 Patent simply computerizes
the well-known concept of generating menus and facilitating an order from the
menus, a concept that has been performed by humans “verbally” or by “pen and
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-63-
paper” for years before the patent application was filed. See CyberSource, 654
F.3d at 1372.
Although the claims recite a computer “operating system,” “data storage
device,” and “central processing unit,” these computer-aided limitations are
insufficient to impart patent eligibility to the otherwise abstract idea. The use of a
computer adds no more than its basic function – improving the “efficient
generation of computerized menus” so that menus are generated faster than with
the non-computerized process. Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at Abstract, 1:53-54, 2:8-
9, 2:15-16 (describing the prior art methods as “slow” and “unacceptable for the
time criticality of ordering” whereas the computerized method facilitates “user-
friendly and efficient generation of computerized menus” to allow for “fast and
automatic synchronization” and “real-time communication over the internet”).
Further, the addition of the computer does not impose a meaningful limitation of
the scope of the claims because it “function[s] solely as an obvious mechanism for
permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a
computer for performing calculations.” See, e.g., SiRF Tech., 601 F.3d at 1333;
Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278 (using a computer for its basic function of making
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-64-
calculations or computations “fails to circumvent the prohibition against patenting
abstract ideas and mental processes”).
Moreover, the claimed computer components do not “play a significant part
in permitting the claimed method to be performed,” nor do they tie the
performance of the menu-based ordering method to a very specific application.
Fort Props., 671 F.3d at 1323. Although Claims 1-11 recite a computerized
system for efficient generation of menus, the claims fail to specify how the
computer is “specifically programmed to perform the steps claimed in the patent.”
See Dealertrack, 674 F.3d at 1333. Claims 1-11 recite steps and/or what Ameranth
argues to be functional limitations, but do not disclose (1) an algorithm or
mathematical formula related to how the computer is programmed to generate the
menus, (2) how the computer formats or maintains the menus, or (3) how the
computer synchronizes the menus with other computing devices. In this regard, the
Challenged Claims and the ‘850 Patent are silent as to how the computer aids these
functions “or the significance of the computer to the performance of the method.”
See id. Indeed, the ‘850 Patent itself explicitly states that the general purpose
programming steps are so “commonly known” that “programming details are not
necessary.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent 11:45-48.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-65-
Rather, the Challenged Claims impermissibly set forth basic functions of a
general purpose computer at a high level of generality – e.g., generating,
formatting, synchronizing, and transmitting menus. See CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at
1287 (“[A]dding generic computer functions to facilitate performance provides no
substantial limitation and therefore is not ‘enough’ to satisfy § 101”); Mayo, 132
S. Ct. at 1300 (“[S]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of
generality, . . . abstract ideas cannot make those . . . ideas patentable.”); see also
CyberSource Corp., 654 F.3d at 1376-77 (finding claims using the Internet to
detect fraud invalid under Section 101); Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278-79 (finding
computerized method for managing and valuing a life insurance policy invalid
under Section 101); Exhibit 1064, Vacation Exch. LLC v. Wyndham Exch. &
Rentals, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-04229, Dkt. No. 27, slip op. at 3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18,
2012) (finding a computerized method of exchanging timeshares invalid under
Section 101); Exhibit 1065, Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., 6:12-cv-
00375, Dkt. No. 38, slip op. at 9 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2012) (finding a
computerized method for processing floating numbers invalid under Section 101).
Claims 1-11’s recitation of general computer functions are not enough to satisfy
§ 101.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-66-
Claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea: the placing an order or reservation
using a general purpose computer and wireless handheld device. The ‘850 Patent
describes the “invention” as an improvement over “paper-based ordering, waitlist,
and reservation management.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 2:33-48. In fact, the
“invention” is nothing more than “computerization of these functions.” Exhibit
1031, ‘850 Patent at 2:36. The old technology was hard-wired (“largely limited to
fixed computer solutions, i.e., desktop or mainframe”) and the “improved” method
uses “automated interfaces to handheld and Website menus and ordering options”
and “software for fully realizing the potential for wireless handheld computing
devices.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 2:37-38; 2:47-48; 2:6-7.
The claimed system employs “typical” computer equipment, such as a
computer workstation, operating system, modem, display screen, keyboard, mouse,
and option removable storage devices (e.g., floppy drive or CD ROM drive).
Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 5:33-55. The patent acknowledges that the general
purpose “programming steps are [so] commonly known” that “details are not
necessary” to disclose. Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 11:45-48.
Though Claim 12 recites computer and web-based components (e.g.,
“database,” “wireless handheld computing device,” “web server,” “web page,”
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-67-
“application software,” etc.), these computer-aided limitations are token post-
solution activity that cannot impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of placing
an order or reservation using a general purpose computer and wireless handheld
device. The patent describes “the inventive concept” as the “generation of a menu
in any context known to those skilled in the art where an objective is to facilitate
display of the menu so as to enable selection of items from that menu.” Exhibit
1031, ‘850 Patent at 14:18-21. In essence, Claim 12 more broadly covers any
system “that enables a user to shop for and order merchandise” using a general
purpose computer and wireless handheld device. Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at
12:44. Once the computer-aided limitations are stripped away, Claim 12
effectively preempts the use of a computer and wireless handheld device for
placing an order or reservation over the internet.
The use of the computer in Claim 12 adds no more than its basic function—
improving “[e]fficiencies with respect to computational speed and equipment.”
Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 14:35-38; see also Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 1:51-
55; 2:5-19 (describing the prior art methods as “slow[ing] down” and
“unacceptable for the time criticality of ordering” whereas the computerized
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-68-
method facilitates “fast and automatic synchronization” and “real-time
communication over the internet”).
Furthermore, the claimed computer components do not play a significant
part in permitting Claim 12 to be practiced, nor do they tie the practice of the order
placing to a very specific application. Although Claim 12 and its dependent claims
recite a computerized communication system for placing orders or reservations
over the internet, the claim fails to specify how the computer is specifically
programmed to practice the features claimed in the patent. The claims do not
disclose how the computer is programmed to communicate with the wireless
handheld devices, how the computer synchronizes data between the database,
wireless handheld computing device, and Web pages, or how the computer enables
integration of outside applications with hospitality applications. There is no
algorithm or mathematical formula disclosed to practice the features, and the
claims are silent as to how the computer aids these features. To the contrary, the
patent states that the features are so “commonly known” that “programming details
are not necessary.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at 11:45-48.
In short, Claim 12 sets forth basic functions of a general purpose computer
at a high level of generality – e.g., communicating, synchronizing, and integrating.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-69-
It is well-established that simply appending conventional steps at a high level of
generality to an abstract idea cannot make that idea patentable. See, e.g., CLS
Bank, 717 F.3d at 1287 (“[A]dding generic computer functions to facilitate
performance provides no substantial limitation and therefore is not ‘enough’ to
satisfy § 101”); Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300 (“[S]imply appending conventional steps,
specified at a high level of generality, . . . abstract ideas cannot make
those . . . ideas patentable.”); CyberSource Corp., 654 F.3d at 1376-77 (finding
claims using the Internet to detect fraud invalid under Section 101); Bancorp, 687
F.3d at 1278-79 (finding computerized method for managing and valuing a life
insurance policy invalid under Section 101). Thus, Claim 12 and its dependent
claims 13-16 are invalid.
C. The Challenged Claims Fail the “Machine or Transformation Test”
Courts have frequently relied on the “machine or transformation test” to
determine whether a process is patentable under § 101.11 Under this test, a process
11 As discussed above, while the Challenged Claims are apparatus claims,
they recite various steps to be performed – i.e., the apparatus claims are effectively
directed to a process.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-70-
is patentable only if “(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it
transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.” Bilski II, 130 S. Ct. at
3225. Although this is not the sole test for determining patent eligibility, the
Supreme Court has indicated the test provides “a useful and important clue” for
making that determination. Id. at 3227. Not every patent that recites a machine or
transformation of an article passes the machine or transformation test. In re Bilski,
545 F.3d 943, 961 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“Bilski I”). Instead, to “impart
patent-eligibility to an otherwise unpatentable process under the theory that the
process is linked to a machine, the use of the machine must impose meaningful
limits on the claim’s scope.” CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375.
In this case, the Challenged Claims are not linked to a machine in a way that
imposes meaningful limits on the claims’ scope. The computer limitations in the
claims, e.g., computer “operating system,” “central processing unit,” “data storage
device,” or “wireless handheld computing devices,” do not sufficiently tie the
claims to an actual application of the idea. See Dealertrack, 674 F.3d at 1333.
The ‘850 Patent readily admits it “does not specify how the computer hardware
and database are specially programmed to perform the steps claimed in the patent.”
See id. The Challenged Claims are silent as to how a computer stores the “first
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-71-
menu,” “second menu,” or “master menu” or how a computer “enables” the
various functions related to generating, synchronizing or transmitting menus. The
Challenged Claims also disclose neither the extent to which a computer
implements the method nor the significance of a computer to the performance of
the method. See id. Instead, the Challenged Claims state that the “system” is
“enabled for” performing certain steps, but the Challenged Claims “contain no hint
as to how the information . . . will be sorted, weighed, and ultimately converted
into a useable conclusion” to accomplish the claimed methods. CyberSource, 654
F.3d at 1376 n.4. Because the computer “operating system,” “central processing
unit,” and “data storage device” can be programmed to perform different tasks in
different ways, none of these machines play “a significant part in permitting the
claimed method to be performed.” See Dealertrack, 674 F.3d at 1333. Thus,
simply reciting computerized limitations in a claim covering an abstract concept as
the Challenged Claims do here, without more, is insufficient to render the claim
patent eligible. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (recitation of a computer or
computer hardware is not sufficient to confer patent eligibility to an abstract
process).
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-72-
Because the Challenged Claims are not tied to a particular machine, they
impermissibly seek to cover a general-purpose computer that includes the recited
steps. In Gottschalk v. Benson, the Supreme Court invalidated claims directed to a
mathematical process for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure
binary numbers on a general purpose digital computer. 409 U.S. at 68. The claims
were not eligible for patent protection because they “purported to cover any use of
the claimed method in a general-purpose digital computer of any type.” Id. at 64
(emphasis added). Similarly, the Challenged Claims purport to cover the
generation of computerized menus using a general purpose computer (e.g., “central
processing unit” and “operating system”) using general computer programming
(e.g., “application software”), and thus they are not sufficiently tied to a particular
machine to confer patent eligibility. Compression Tech., 2013 WL 2368039, at *8
(“Simply adding a label like ‘computer aided’ or vague references to calculations
or ‘digital storage’ will not render an otherwise abstract idea patent eligible”).
Nor do the Challenged Claims claim the transformation of “an article to a
different state or thing.” Bilski II, 130 S. Ct. at 1326. The claims instead are
drawn to an unspecified system dealing with information such as “menu,” “data”
and “applications.” These items are not restricted to a physical object. Likewise,
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-73-
selecting and transmitting data is akin to collecting and organizing data, which is
not a “transformation” for purposes of the “machine or transformation” test. See
CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1370 (“The mere collection and organization of data
regarding credit card numbers and Internet addresses is insufficient to meet the
transformation prong of the test.”). Generating a computerized menu in
accordance with the ‘850 Patent instead of using a paper-based menu is not a
“transformation.” A computer-aided approach to an abstract idea is no less
abstract. Similarly, in the context of the ‘850 Patent, synchronization is nothing
more than the result of the increased speed of communication afforded by
computers. A basic manipulation of data such as selecting, generating,
transmitting and synchronizing data in accordance with the ‘850 Patent fails to
transform a specific article into a different state or thing. Bilski I, 545 F.3d at 962.
Thus, the Challenged Claims cannot meet the “transformation” prong of the
“machine or transformation” test.
D. The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under Mayo
In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court warned against upholding
patents that claim processes preempting the use of a natural law, mathematical
formula, or abstract idea. 132 S. Ct. at 1293-94, 1297, 1301. The Court ruled that
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-74-
a patent claiming a process applying a natural law must “amount[] to significantly
more” than a patent upon the natural law itself. Id. at 1294 (citing Bilski II, 130 S.
Ct. at 3230 (“[T]he prohibition against patenting abstract ideas cannot be
circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
technological environment or adding insignificant postsolution activity.”) (case cite
omitted)). The Supreme Court stated, “simply appending conventional steps,
specified at a high level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, and ideas patentable.” Id. at
1300. Applying these principles, the Court invalidated a process applying a natural
law that involved “well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously
engaged in by researchers in the field” because upholding such a patent “would
risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying natural laws, inhibiting
their use in the making of further discoveries.” Id. at 1294.
The Challenged Claims claim the abstract idea of generating menus and the
abstract idea of placing an order or reservation using a general purpose computer
and wireless handheld device according to a “commonly known” and conventional
procedure that has been used by the hospitality industry for years. Exhibit 1031,
‘850 Patent at 11:46, 1:19-23. Like the claims in Mayo that did not amount to
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-75-
“significantly more” than simply describing the natural correlations between drug
dosages and blood metabolites, the Challenged Claims do not amount to
“significantly more” than reciting the abstract idea of generating menus using a
general purpose computer or the abstract idea of placing an order or reservation
using a general purpose computer and wireless handheld device. In addition, the
“token postsolution components,” such as a computer operating system, central
processing unit, or data storage device, do not make the otherwise abstract concept
patentable. See Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301.
E. The Challenged Claims Are Distinguishable From Ultramercial
In Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013),
the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that “the mere reference to a general purpose
computer will not save a method claim from being deemed too abstract to be patent
eligible.” Likewise, Ultramercial recognized that claims reciting only “the idea of
doing that thing on a computer” are problematic. Id. To be patent-eligible, the
patent claim should instead be “tied to a computer in a specific way, such that the
computer plays a meaningful role in the performance of the claimed invention.”
Id. at 1349.
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-76-
The Ultramercial invention addressed a problem inherently tied to
computers and the Internet, namely the ease of distributing copyrighted works over
the Internet and the drawbacks of prior art banner advertising. Id. at 1349-50.
Because “several steps plainly require[d] that the method be performed through
computers, on the internet” and required “complex computer programming,” the
Ultramercial invention was not unpatentably abstract. Id. at 1350. In contrast, the
‘850 Patent attempts to claim only the idea of menu generation and ordering on a
computer. In fact, the ‘850 Patent acknowledges that its use of automated
interfaces and software is merely an alternative to conventional, computerless
“paper-based ordering, waitlist and reservation management.” Exhibit 1031, ‘850
Patent at 2:33-34. Simply practicing an abstract concept on a computer does not
result in patent eligibility. Accenture Global Servs. GmbH, 2013 WL 4749919 at
*8 (“simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful
limitations to the concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a
patent-eligible one”).
In the end, the Challenged Claims cover nothing more than an abstract idea
of generating menus and the abstract idea of placing an order or reservation using a
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-77-
general purpose computer and wireless handheld device, and, therefore, they fail
on their face to satisfy the patent eligibility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, it is more likely than not that at least one of
Claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101
or 112, and therefore Petitioners respectfully request that the Board institute a
CBM review of the ‘850 Patent.
Dated: November 8, 2013 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Richard S. Zembek Richard S. Zembek Reg. No. 43,306 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P. 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, Texas 77010 Tel: 713-651-5151 Fax: 713-651-5246 [email protected] Gilbert A. Greene Reg. No. 48,366 FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: 512.474.5201 Fax: 512.536.4598 [email protected]
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-78-
Attorneys for Petitioners Expedia, Inc., Fandango, LLC, Hotel Tonight Inc., Hotwire, Inc., Hotels.com, L.P., Kayak Software Corp., Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Micros Systems, Inc., Orbitz, LLC, OpenTable, Inc., Papa John’s USA, Inc., Stubhub, Inc., Ticketmaster, LLC, Travelocity.com LP, and Wanderspot LLC
AMENDED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
-79-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 8, 2013, I served the forgoing Amended
Petition For Covered Business Method Patent Review Under 35 U.S.C. § 321 and
§ 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act via electronic mail on the patent
owner’s designated counsel of record for the current subject patent (U.S. Patent
No. 6,384,850):
John W. Osborne, Lead Counsel Osborne Law LLC 33 Habitat Lane Cortlandt Manor, NY [email protected]
Michael D Fabiano, Backup Counsel Fabiano Law Firm, P.C. 12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 [email protected]
I also served the Petition, via electronic mail, on the patent owner at the
following address known to the petitioners as likely to effect service:
William J Caldarelli Caldarelli Hejmanowski & Page LLP 12340 El Camino Real, Suite 430 San Diego, CA 92130 [email protected]
/s/ Richard S. Zembek Richard S. Zembek Reg. No. 43,306